READY STATE BANK, A FLORIDA BANKING CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
BARRY D. MEISELMAN, APPELLEE; BARRY D. MEISELMAN, APPELLANT, V. UNION PLANTERS BANK, N.A., F/K/A READY STATE BANK, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Ready State Bank, a mortgagee of a leasehold, appealed the trial court's denial of its request to succeed to the tenants' contractual rights under a "pickup" lease provision after the lease was canceled due to defaults. The court affirmed, finding the bank failed to diligently pursue cure of defaults as required by the lease agreement.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial because there was ample evidence that Ready State Bank did not diligently pursue the cure of defaults under the lease as required by the parties' agreement. The bank therefore did not satisfy the conditions precedent to invoking the pickup lease provision.
[1] A lender seeking to succeed to a tenant's rights under a "pickup" lease must diligently pursue the cure of any default under the lease that it is reasonably capable of cu…
[2] A trial court's finding that a lender failed to diligently pursue the cure of a lease default is supported by ample evidence, and will not be disturbed on appeal.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“there is ample evidence to support the conclusion that the "Lender," Ready, did not, as required, "[diligently pursue] ... the cure of any default under the Lease that [it was] reasonably capable of curing."”
Establishes the court's basis for affirming: the bank failed to satisfy the condition precedent to invoke the pickup lease right.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReady State Bank held a mortgage on a long-term leasehold granted to tenants by fee-owner landlord Barry Meiselman. After numerous defaults by the ten…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
Ready State Bank held a mortgage on a long-term leasehold granted to the Appels, the tenants, by the fee-owner landlord, Meiselman. Because of numerous defaults, the lease was canceled below in a ruling about which the bank does not complain. It does contend, however, in a case number 98-2201, that the trial court erred in failing to grant its application to succeed to the contractual rights of the tenants under a so called “pickup” lease, see 1 Milton R. Friedman, Friedman on Leases § 7.801, at 451 (4th ed. 1997), as provided by the parties’ mutual agreement.1 We disagree and affirm simply because there is ample evidence to support the conclusion that the “Lender,” Ready, did not, as required, “[diligently pursue] ... the cure of any default under the Lease that [it was] reasonably capable of curing.” In this state of the record we cannot, of course, interfere with the decision below. Westerman v. Shell’s City, Inc., 265 So. 2d 43 (Fla.1972); Home Ins. Co. v. Mendelson, 367 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Meiselman separately argues in case number 99-164 that the expenses of the receivership imposed on the leasehold should have been taxed as cost against the bank. We find no error in this ruling. D.S. Ware Co. v. Green, 696 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Barredo v. Skyfreight, Inc., 430 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
Affirmed.
. The provision in question stated:
Lender (or it its designee, as the case may be), shall cure any default in the payment of any rentals, amounts or fees owing under the Lease within the cure period herein-above prescribed and shall continue to pay such rentals, amounts or fees as and when the same become due and payable, and Lender diligently proceeds to cure any default that Lender is reasonably capable of curing. If, notwithstanding Lender's payment of all rents due and the Lender’s diligent pursuit of the cure of any default under the Lease that Lender is reasonably capable of curing, the Lease is terminated for any reason whatsoever, then, in such event, at the option of Lender, Lessor will enter into a new lease with Lender or Lender’s desig-nee upon terms and conditions identical to those in the Lease for the full remaining term of the Lease and any extensions thereof. [emphasis supplied]
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anesthesiology Critical Care & Pain Mgmt. Consultants, P.A. v. Kretzer, 802 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…. The high/low agreement was not disclosed to the jury. . The proper standard for reviewing a trial court’s decision regarding the imposition of a Valcin presumption is whether the trial court abused its discretion. See Kloster Cruise Ltd. v. Igac, 741 So. 2d 1215, 1215 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)(held no abuse of discretion in failing to give a Valcin instruction where there was only one lost MRI film); King, 656 So. 2d at 1337 (held an abuse of discretion to give Valcin instruction).…
Authorities Cited
- Westerman v. Shell's City, Inc., 265 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1972)
- The Home Ins. Co. v. Mendelson, 367 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Barredo v. Skyfreight, Inc., 430 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Feagle v. Feagle, 696 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)